is climate change like a cartoon zebra?

last night i turned a cartoon that i had never seen on netflix. it was called Khumbo or something like that. its a story about a zebra born with half of his body without stripes. the other zebras took that as an omen. shortly after there was a drought that was blamed on this half striped zebra. i did not finish it because my son fell asleep.

one thing i took away from it was the herd was so quick to blame a problem on something that was different. i am not a climate, weather, fuel, rocket scientist at all so what i say is merely conjecture (i think i used that right) how do we know that carbon in the sky is causing climate change? i have seen a few videos with the argument that it acts as a blanket redirecting heat reflected off the planet right back down. sort of like a heat battery. but wouldnt it reflect the heat coming from the sun back out in space?

i spent some time in the desert. i know that covering yourself that reflects light (heat = light?) will keep you cooler. also being directly under a blanket makes you warm but putting that blanket a few feet above you makes you cooler.

what kind of tests were done to confirm that my jeeps exhaust is going to melt all the ice?

if carbon is the problem why cant we mitigate it?

could it just be a coincedance that the climate is changing now because thats what it does and not because we are burning carbons?

a reply to: crustyjuggler27

Sequestration is trees capturing CO2 and returning O2. Burning down all the forests is releasing that carbon back to the atmosphere, so is burning coal and oil. So somewhere along that path we run out of trees and breathable air. Trees also fix the soil so a forest retains and filters water so we can drink it.

Without breathable air and drinkable water we are pretty much screwed.

a reply to: intrptr

so the problem is we are cutting too many trees and using too much fuel? like that is the be-all fact about climate change that people in suits and on the news are talking about? forgive my ignorance. i have been a deny'er and still may be. i just read on iflscience that we have reached the point of no return as far as carbon levels are concerned. can we do anything at this point?

a reply to: crustyjuggler27
I agree with your thread . First S&F . We do have a habit of jumping the gun so to speak . The more money to be made , the quicker we jump the gun.And you are right about "stuff" that deadens or reflects the sun's rays. It gets colder.We are listening to climatologists (who really only have the statistics since the early 1900s to go by) The people we should be listening to are the "pure sciences" . Geologists state that there have been lots of periods in earth's history that the CO2 level has risen. The temp rises at first , then basically "overnight" the temp falls across mostly the northern hemisphere until ice covers most.The last time that occurred was 26000 years ago and North America was covered by 2' of ice down to Dallas , TX. They also state we are in range for another of these mini-ice ages . Of course , there voice is being drowned out by the AGW due to there is actual money in carbon tax ponzi scheme . I feel like sometimes the only people pushing this are the ones that have invested in it (their life savings , 401ks, etc) trying to make a fortune from nothing. Another Bernie Madoff if you ask me.

a reply to: crustyjuggler27

Does CO2 directly and automatically causes temperature rise?

Hm... Let us see, shall we?

a reply to: Gothmog

thats what i have been pondering. is there a relation in the dates of ice ages making some sort of cycle? are we due for one? if burning fuels and cutting trees is a problem then shouldn't we be talking about how we are expediting climate change instead of causing it?

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: crustyjuggler27

Does CO2 directly and automatically causes temperature rise?

Hm... Let us see, shall we?

i cant really follow that graph. what do those numbers represent? where were the atmospheric samples taken? does that show that the temps are going down?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: crustyjuggler27

Sequestration is trees capturing CO2 and returning O2. Burning down all the forests is releasing that carbon back to the atmosphere, so is burning coal and oil. So somewhere along that path we run out of trees and breathable air. Trees also fix the soil so a forest retains and filters water so we can drink it.

Without breathable air and drinkable water we are pretty much screwed.

Actually most of the Earth's oxygen comes from the ocean not trees.

a reply to: crustyjuggler27

like that is the be-all fact about climate change that people in suits and on the news are talking about?

Thats the fact they want to hide. Among the biggest corporations are the oil and coal industries, they don't want you to stop driving your car or lighting and heating your home.

As far as deforestation the impoverished nations of the world are burning down their forests out of 'necessity'.

forgive my ignorance.

You aren't ignorant, you hit the nail on the head. "They" want you worrying about melting ice, rising sea levels, and bad weather, instead of resource depletion and environmental pollution.

a reply to: crustyjuggler27

The amount of deforestation outweighs the amount of reforestation, and if the fauna that traps the Co2 is wiped out then there is only one place where the Co2 can go.

a reply to: Greathouse

Actually most of the Earth's oxygen comes from the ocean not trees.

Most?

The oceans are becoming cesspools and pollution dumps.

maybe we dig a giant hole somewhere and fill it with harvested hemp. just take it as a loss. i think hemp absorbs a good amount of co2. and after a billion years we have more oil.

a reply to: intrptr

Yep most, as in over 50%. All plant life produces oxygen also, including grass,flowers, crops or just about anything that uses photosynthesis.


I don't like the idea of cutting down the rain forest either. But I just wanted it known that trees little impact on oxygen levels. It's just me and it's a pet peeve I don't like inaccurate statements.

a reply to: Greathouse

Yep most, as in over 50%. All plant life produces oxygen also, including grass,flowers, crops or just about anything that uses photosynthesis.

okay, thanks for pointing out the oceans role. I'll try to remember that.

a reply to: crustyjuggler27
The key is we as a race cannot injure this Earth much if any. If you bring all the automobiles on this earth together , they would not fill up the US state of Georgia.All people together in the world could be placed in the US state of Texas and everyone would still have a one foot radius of space around them. And dont forget , when a tree is chopped down in the US , 2 trees (at least) have to be planted.Are we changing the Earth ? Is likely. Are we changing it enough to state all the doom porn coming out of the GW crowd ? I highly doubt it. With this being said, QUIT BLAMING . That is what I say to everyone. Start making changes. We all depend on oil , gas, coal , natural gas to live our lives. Yet , we turn around and call them mean ugly companies. Why ? If you take those away (at this time) we are left with no technology at all. Period.It doesnt work without electricity.Batteries, sure. But where do those go once they reach the end of their lifetime ? Wind? Why not . Only it would take a windmill farm the size of one of our states just to power 1 medium size city . An example : the new "green light bulbs" . When they first came out they had a warning that if you broke one in your home you had to shutdown the central heat and air , cover all vents, exit the house and call a HAZMAT team for cleanup.(plus they cost about 30x more and are manufactured in China)
So , instead of focusing on stopping CO2 , lets start thinking of ways to UTILIZE that CO2. (think of the ocean's plankton which is responsible for 90+ % of the air we breathe. Thank you for your time.

a reply to: crustyjuggler27

i have seen a few videos with the argument that it acts as a blanket redirecting heat reflected off the planet right back down. sort of like a heat battery. but wouldnt it reflect the heat coming from the sun back out in space?

Nope. At very negligible levels it does, but the whole issue with greenhouse gases is that they trap lower level infrared radiation while letting higher frequencies pass through unabated.

The Sun radiates at a much hotter temperature than the Earth, so because of this we receive most of its energy in the form of visible + higher energy (UV) light. GHGs let this light pass through on its way in. The Earth must then re-radiate that energy back out to maintain equilibrium, but because it re-radiates at a lower temperature, it radiates mainly infrared - which happens to be a wavelength that GHGs eat up like candy.

This is a well proven effect which can be easily reproduced:



The Earth has existed under a natural greenhouse effect long before people ever started burning hydrocarbons. This is why we experience very different temperature variations than the Moon for example, even though it sits roughly at the same distance from the Sun. But the problem is now we are enhancing that natural greenhouse effect. This process has also been physically observed. The following graphs show less heat escaping into space over time, and more returning to the surface (respectively), at the precise frequencies our emissions are known to interact with the EM spectrum:




There are many people here who will tell you there’s no evidence that CO2 causes warming, and that it’s all based on hypothetical computer models. There is in fact tons of evidence, and those people saying that are simply not very well informed.

As for your question on why we can't mitigate the carbon problem: we can. But there are some powerful entities out there who don't want to, because they're making tons of money burning the stuff.